BUSH'S FINAL LIE

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Bush's final lie
The man who lied his way through life left us with, yet again, another rosy assessment of where the economy was during the last full quarter of his tenure.

Turns out GDP was NEARLY DOUBLE the amount LOWER than reported under BUSH.

Read it and weep, folks. The economy CONTRACTED OVER 6% in Q4.

Hey DTB - here's your TRUTH: from your Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123574078772194361.html#mod=testMod:

:0corn
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
OK Steve just been since less than 15 days since this thread was up--so will bring it back from archives to see if you now have any videos or other data you'd like to add that you when on topic.

http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=358028


lets take a look at a few facts--

Who was responsible for passing law that allowed banking to collapse by recinding prior safegaurds? Answer BillyBob
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C1A96F9582 60

Who did Dems put in charge of of Banking Commitee in 06--Dodds
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/...iness/dodd.php

--and speaking of Dodds lets follow the money--
in addition to him being under investigation currently for sweet heart deals from Freddie and Fannie on 3 of his personal mortages--

2 highest Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
(note this is 8 year period and O was only in there 4 of 8 years)
Name Office State Party Grand Total Total from
PACs Total from
Individuals
Dodd, Christopher J S CT D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900
Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ok what about this admin--

McCain

Then in 2005 John McCain co-sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.

The Bill was never passed. John McCain addressed the floor on May 26th, 2006. Here is an excerpt:

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation
Dems would NOT let bill come to vote
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---and what about GW?
excuse me this will be lenthy-lets go by year--sorry no videos


** 2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is ?a potential problem,? because ?financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.?

** 2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

** 2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that ?although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,? ?the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.? As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (?Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,? OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact ?legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises? and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any ?legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.? To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have ?broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards? and ?receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.? (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

** 2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: ?The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore?should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.? (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to ?not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.? Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by ?ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.? (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, ?Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order,? Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying ?We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.? (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

** 2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America? Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

** 2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying ?first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.? (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August ? up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month ? the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying ?These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs ? and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.? (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

--any rebutals--
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
I know this will be a challange DTB but get someone to read it to you.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mortgages/20040923a1.asp

Bush vs. Kerry on housing, mortgage issues
By Holden Lewis

On issues of housing and mortgages, there are clear differences between George W. Bush and John Kerry. Bush pushes homeownership, especially among minorities. Kerry emphasizes providing decent and affordable rental housing.

In terms of campaign contributions, Bush is overwhelmingly the favorite candidate of real estate agents, mortgage bankers and brokers, and home builders.

The centerpiece of Bush's housing policy is an effort to increase homeownership among minorities. In June 2002 he announced a plan to increase minority homeownership by 5.5 million families by 2010. Since then, the number of minority homeowners has increased by 1.6 million, according to Alphonso Jackson, housing secretary.

- advertisement -

PVR;h_250_w_300_cc_47172_cm_23039;1;0/1000


This year the homeownership rate among African Americans is expected to reach 50 percent for the first time, up from 46.5 percent in the second quarter of 2002, when Bush announced the policy. In that time, the Hispanic homeownership rate has risen from 46.1 percent to 47.4 percent.
Bush talks about this in his stump speech. "In changing times, ownership can bring stability to your lives," he said Sept. 13 in Holland, Mich. "One of the great statistics of the last couple of years is the homeownership rate is at an all-time high in America. We got a plan to continue homeownership in America. I love the fact when people from all walks of life can open up the door where they're living and say, 'Welcome to my home. Welcome to my piece of property.'"

The Bush administration has pursued this housing goal in two ways: by making it easier to buy a home with a low down payment, and by threatening to punish FHA lenders that foreclose too eagerly.

In December, Bush signed the American Dream Downpayment Initiative, a program that provides grants to low-income home buyers to pay their down payments and closing costs. This year he proposed the Zero Downpayment Initiative, which would allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages with no down payments; current law requires a down payment of at least 3 percent. That bill didn't get out of its House committee because congressional leaders didn't have time to resolve conflicting estimates of the cost before election season got into full swing.

The Bush administration has tried to cut down on foreclosures by requiring lenders of FHA-insured loans to try to work things out with borrowers who fall behind on their payments. If lenders don't make enough of an effort, they can be cut off from the FHA program.

The administration tried, but failed, to reform the mortgage-lending process when it proposed broad changes in the way it would enforce the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA. The reform proposal would have forced mortgage lenders and brokers to simplify the mortgage loan process and guarantee closing costs. It would have benefited borrowers at the expense of some lenders and settlement service providers. Under pressure from the mortgage, title insurance, real estate and settlement services industries, the Department of Housing and Urban Development withdrew the proposal last spring. Jackson, the head of HUD, says he plans to reintroduce a modified RESPA reform proposal after consulting industry groups.

While Bush's policy proposals have been friendly to people who can afford monthly mortgage payments, they haven't been so generous to the poor. Bush wants to cut the Section 8 housing voucher program, which provides help to 2 million renters, by $1 billion at a time when it would need to be increased by $600 million to maintain its caseload. Kerry calls it a "cost-cutting gimmick that will hurt American families."

Whereas Bush cultivates support among homeowners while spurning those who need rental vouchers, Kerry does the opposite. Kerry doesn't mention housing in his stump speech. On the Kerry campaign Web site, the page that highlights his housing record focuses mostly on programs for low-income renters, with little mention of policies to help middle-class homeowners.

Kerry boasts of helping to craft and pass the Multifamily Assisted Housing Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997, "which helped save the government billions of dollars in rental assistance payments, preserved thousands of affordable rental apartments, and helped finance the rehabilitation of those apartments," the campaign says.

It adds that Kerry helped reform the public and manufactured housing programs, as well as co-sponsoring or offering amendments to other affordable-housing legislation while he sat on the Senate's housing subcommittee. One unpassed bill would have funded development of affordable rental housing; another would have encouraged construction and rehabilitation of houses in economically distressed areas so low- and moderate-income families could own them; another would have let home buyers borrow, tax free, from individual retirement accounts to make down payments.

The Kerry campaign calls for federal laws to ban predatory mortgage lending: limiting high prepayment penalties, restricting balloon payments, capping points and fees on subprime mortgages, and banning single-premium mortgage insurance.

When it comes to contributions from employees of housing-related corporations, Bush is the hands-down winner. According to information compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Bush has raised $10.9 million from employees and political action committees of the real estate, home building, and mortgage industries. Kerry has raised $2.9 million from those industries.

The disparity is especially great among home builders, from whom Bush holds more than an 11-to-1 fund-raising edge over Kerry. Thirteen of the top 20 contributors from the home-building industry gave 100 percent of their political contributions to Republicans.

Among the all-Republican contributors are employees of Perry Homes, whose chief executive, Bob J. Perry, was the main source of money for Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth. His $100,000 contribution to that group doesn't count among his donations to Republican politicians, including $2,000 to Bush. His wife, Doylene, also gave $2,000 to Bush.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
:0corn Hey Jack. I noticed the popcorn is getting low. Seems to be long waiting times for DTB to reply once someone replies to his non-sense post. Skulnik feel free to post too. :shrug:

Also DTB. Not sure what your post had to do with what I posted in the opening link. Maybe you could address that one. Certainly, someone in Kentucky must know how to read.:shrug:
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Steve cut them a little slack. Even they never said Bush had a brain. Numbers will start to look differant under O by 3rd grt.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
I know this will be a challange DTB but get someone to read it to you.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mortgages/20040923a1.asp

Bush vs. Kerry on housing, mortgage issues
By Holden Lewis

On issues of housing and mortgages, there are clear differences between George W. Bush and John Kerry. Bush pushes homeownership, especially among minorities. Kerry emphasizes providing decent and affordable rental housing.

In terms of campaign contributions, Bush is overwhelmingly the favorite candidate of real estate agents, mortgage bankers and brokers, and home builders.

The centerpiece of Bush's housing policy is an effort to increase homeownership among minorities. In June 2002 he announced a plan to increase minority homeownership by 5.5 million families by 2010. Since then, the number of minority homeowners has increased by 1.6 million, according to Alphonso Jackson, housing secretary.

- advertisement -

PVR;h_250_w_300_cc_47172_cm_23039;1;0/1000


This year the homeownership rate among African Americans is expected to reach 50 percent for the first time, up from 46.5 percent in the second quarter of 2002, when Bush announced the policy. In that time, the Hispanic homeownership rate has risen from 46.1 percent to 47.4 percent.
Bush talks about this in his stump speech. "In changing times, ownership can bring stability to your lives," he said Sept. 13 in Holland, Mich. "One of the great statistics of the last couple of years is the homeownership rate is at an all-time high in America. We got a plan to continue homeownership in America. I love the fact when people from all walks of life can open up the door where they're living and say, 'Welcome to my home. Welcome to my piece of property.'"

The Bush administration has pursued this housing goal in two ways: by making it easier to buy a home with a low down payment, and by threatening to punish FHA lenders that foreclose too eagerly.

In December, Bush signed the American Dream Downpayment Initiative, a program that provides grants to low-income home buyers to pay their down payments and closing costs. This year he proposed the Zero Downpayment Initiative, which would allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages with no down payments; current law requires a down payment of at least 3 percent. That bill didn't get out of its House committee because congressional leaders didn't have time to resolve conflicting estimates of the cost before election season got into full swing.

The Bush administration has tried to cut down on foreclosures by requiring lenders of FHA-insured loans to try to work things out with borrowers who fall behind on their payments. If lenders don't make enough of an effort, they can be cut off from the FHA program.

The administration tried, but failed, to reform the mortgage-lending process when it proposed broad changes in the way it would enforce the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA. The reform proposal would have forced mortgage lenders and brokers to simplify the mortgage loan process and guarantee closing costs. It would have benefited borrowers at the expense of some lenders and settlement service providers. Under pressure from the mortgage, title insurance, real estate and settlement services industries, the Department of Housing and Urban Development withdrew the proposal last spring. Jackson, the head of HUD, says he plans to reintroduce a modified RESPA reform proposal after consulting industry groups.

While Bush's policy proposals have been friendly to people who can afford monthly mortgage payments, they haven't been so generous to the poor. Bush wants to cut the Section 8 housing voucher program, which provides help to 2 million renters, by $1 billion at a time when it would need to be increased by $600 million to maintain its caseload. Kerry calls it a "cost-cutting gimmick that will hurt American families."

Whereas Bush cultivates support among homeowners while spurning those who need rental vouchers, Kerry does the opposite. Kerry doesn't mention housing in his stump speech. On the Kerry campaign Web site, the page that highlights his housing record focuses mostly on programs for low-income renters, with little mention of policies to help middle-class homeowners.

Kerry boasts of helping to craft and pass the Multifamily Assisted Housing Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997, "which helped save the government billions of dollars in rental assistance payments, preserved thousands of affordable rental apartments, and helped finance the rehabilitation of those apartments," the campaign says.

It adds that Kerry helped reform the public and manufactured housing programs, as well as co-sponsoring or offering amendments to other affordable-housing legislation while he sat on the Senate's housing subcommittee. One unpassed bill would have funded development of affordable rental housing; another would have encouraged construction and rehabilitation of houses in economically distressed areas so low- and moderate-income families could own them; another would have let home buyers borrow, tax free, from individual retirement accounts to make down payments.

The Kerry campaign calls for federal laws to ban predatory mortgage lending: limiting high prepayment penalties, restricting balloon payments, capping points and fees on subprime mortgages, and banning single-premium mortgage insurance.

When it comes to contributions from employees of housing-related corporations, Bush is the hands-down winner. According to information compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Bush has raised $10.9 million from employees and political action committees of the real estate, home building, and mortgage industries. Kerry has raised $2.9 million from those industries.

The disparity is especially great among home builders, from whom Bush holds more than an 11-to-1 fund-raising edge over Kerry. Thirteen of the top 20 contributors from the home-building industry gave 100 percent of their political contributions to Republicans.

Among the all-Republican contributors are employees of Perry Homes, whose chief executive, Bob J. Perry, was the main source of money for Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth. His $100,000 contribution to that group doesn't count among his donations to Republican politicians, including $2,000 to Bush. His wife, Doylene, also gave $2,000 to Bush.

sorry I'm late Stevie--but can't stay on internet all day like you in gov job on tax payors dime--just finished looking and noted 5 or 6 posts from morning till lunch from you. :)

On your artcle by Holden Lweis on his opinion on Kerry and Bush.

Hard for me argue to argue on what his opnion is.

Now if he or you have any facts to bring to table or rebuttals on any I presented on responsibilty of mortgage fiasco--lets hear them--only thing I've seen so far with your videos and print is GW acknowledging minority homeownership--Which I grant you should be embarrassing but nothing to do with responsibiliy of mortgage demise--

Maybe you could restructure events-timelines-bills presented etc like I did to present your case--of course--we been through that before :tongue
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Dogs, Perhaps you could take time out of busy day denying claims, or a business lunch or a totally deductable round of golf, to tell me what in the article you think is opinion. I gotta say it looks like fact to me.:shrug:
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
Dogs, Perhaps you could take time out of busy day denying claims, or a business lunch or a totally deductable round of golf, to tell me what in the article you think is opinion. I gotta say it looks like fact to me.:shrug:

What a coincidence you'd bring that up. Will be finishing my taxes tomorrow--and always have one envelope for accountant that are golf and meal receipts marked "extras". I do not deduct any meals or golf receipts but keep them seperate in case I'd ever be audited and made mistake some where else. That way I always have cushion--also despite having office at home too--I never take deductions there either. Always heard it was more trouble than it was worth.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
What a coincidence you'd bring that up. Will be finishing my taxes tomorrow--and always have one envelope for accountant that are golf and meal receipts marked "extras". I do not deduct any meals or golf receipts but keep them seperate in case I'd ever be audited and made mistake some where else. That way I always have cushion--also despite having office at home too--I never take deductions there either. Always heard it was more trouble than it was worth.

Very noble of you.:rolleyes:
Now, why don't you answer the question. What in the article i posted do you consider to be opinion. and which are facts.
 

I LOVE WR

Registered
Forum Member
Jun 24, 2002
874
6
0
toronto canada
All you tough guys are proving is that any dumbass can be an American politician. Both on the Democratic and Republican sides. I woudnt brag about that.

Its kind of like a man with a 4 inch penis making fun of the guy with a 2 inch penis. Then a group of women laughing at both of them wildly.

Wankers or morons?? I cant decide:0corn
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top